Evaluations 🧐 Flashcards
What is the introduction of evaluations on non fatal offences? What did the LC do?
Rag Ball of offences- Law commission suggested reform - three times rejected
Go to the evaluation of outdated non-fatal offences
Rag Bag of offences - law commission suggested reform was rejected three times
Outdated OAPA 1861 -Old language - “grievous” - case law has provided us precedent that makes it easier “whosoever” “maliciously”-Harder to understand - apply law 
Language - immediate -(Smith V CC woking)
Does not actually mean immediate
Fails to protect future violence
Physical and threatened - battery outdated assault
Grievous is not defined under the act- maybe no need to reform
Now R v Saunders - no more or less than serious harm -is serious 🧐 - makes logical sense
Evaluate wounding under the non-fatal offences
wounding is defined as a break in the continuity of the skin JCC V Eisenhower
Any cut is treated the same as a GBH
Unnecessary as GBH is serious
it’s the action not the impact
Evaluate ABH and a non-fatal offences
ABH is not defined instead DPP V ChanFook open to interpretation
Seen in previous changes in the law from previous R v Miller
Evaluate occasion under non-fatal offences
Means to cause (R v Ireland 🇮🇪 )but inflict also means to cause what actually means to cause
Evaluate maliciously under non-fatal offences
Means intent has no clarity as MR is not needed
Judges update law (DDP v ChanFook)
(R v Bustrow)
Biological harm ( R v Dica)
vulnerable people - (R v Bollom )
Issues have been resolved through cases ( R v Mowatt ) 
Evaluate sentencing under non-fatal offences
Assault and batteries 12 months however ABH is five years - large jump - S 39 CJA Too big for minor injury
ABH and section 20 - 5 years-Not big enough
Section 28 section 18 discretionary life sentence big jump only different MR 
What are the three criticisms of murder?
Out of date terminology ‘malice aforethought’
Uncertainty through development - Woolin principle for a oblique intent
Rule of intent of unfair
diminished responsibility criticisms
Does not take into account developmental immaturity of children
Loss of control reform of development does not mean hospital has to be immediate
What is precedent done to Our law ? 
Updated our Law
What do we now have?
Psychiatric harm - R v Bustrow
biological harm - R v Dica
to our law constantly doing
Constantly evolving good -
Okay wait and hope that there is precedent 
What is language ? examples? 
Confusing
immediate not to find a thought not an act of parliament -
Smith V CC Woking - You don’t know what’s gonna occur or happen next or believe it they will be harmful misleading
and - unfair on assault hard to understand
Wounding - No need for it Can just rely on serious harm
Assault is an offence under section 47 to me into assault or battery
-Misleading different meaning - people may think assault is physical
Occasion - misleading but have been held to mean cause - You just need the word cause - ( R v Roberts ) (R v Irland 🇮🇪)

What case rely on to define a
ABH ?
R v Miller - now DPP v ChanFook -
Vague
subjective
what is trivial
we need a clearer definition
What does section 20 and 18 include ? What does this not fit with?
Include resist arrest does
not fit with law
why is it section 18 over section 20? 
